Fronk-in-steen

I can't decide who to feel worse for, the monster or Victor Frankenstein. Either way, their lives kind of stink. The monster has nobody and neither does his creator. I think that they are more of doubles rather than creator vs creation. God made people out of his own image but he is WAYYY different from people. Essentially Frankenstein and his monster are really the same thing; both human. They both have human feelings and human cravings. In fact, they usually have the same human cravings at the same time. At the exact time that the Victor was going to have Elizabeth, the monster wanted a mate of his own. Tricky, tricky... I actually have a theory that their was never any monster at all. That is just Frankenstein's own view of himself. I believed he killed those people with his "bad side." Would you notice the innocence of his victims? William and Henry. Both innocent, both well to do. Perhaps they were murdered because of jealousy. Victor feel so tormented by both sides of himself. His good side is tormented because it allowed a bad side to be created; a monster growing from his own mind. As far as the De Lacey's go, that could have been a warped version of a story from his school days. Frankenstein always discusses how his childhood was not typical or enjoyable. He did not get along with most of the people he went to school with and who knows what he did to cope with it. Notice the ties between them learning. The monster is learning when he is with the De Lacey's and Frankenstein was learning at school. Blind prophets? Highly unlikely. He probably tried to make friends with the nerd at school and was still turned down. I think he's mad. Schizophrenic maybe, if we're lucky. I mean how likely is it that some dude figured out a way to make this man, a divine creation, IN HIS APARTMENT, like 50 years ago? UNLIKELY. More likely: he's nuts! Plus, who has seen this monster? other than the isolated de lacey's? NOBODY. He's not that smart, if a giant corpse man was walking around, people would notice. IT WOULD BE KNOWN ABOUt. I personally think, the monster and frankenstein are going to die together. Wouldn't that be odd? would the monster kill himself if the creator killed himself? their the same person so they would die together anyway... im rambling but im really excited because christmas is coming... frankenstein is pretty good. i like the idea. wayyyy better than grendel :)

Franken-freak

After reading Grendel I am pretty stoked to have a book where I DON'T know what is going to happen and their is actually stuff going on, not just stuff that physically made my brain hurt :( but anywho. So for my research for this week I looked up the Byronic hero. The byronic hero is a fictional and cultural character type popular in the Romantic era and beyond. This character may appear in fiction, poetry, or history. So, I looked up some Byronic heroes: You have Grendel from Beowulf, Captain Jack Sparrow from Pirates of the Caribbean, Heathcliff from Wuthering Heights, Edward from Twilight (I would like to point out the irony of Heathcliff and Edward being Byronic characters; one redeeming quality of Stephanie Meyer), Anakin from Star Wars, the list goes on and on. By studying these examples of Byronic heroes I though I could decipher which character in Frankenstein was a Byronic hero, the monster or Victor, but I really couldn't. Both characters are dark/cynical/brilliant in their own ways, they have wandering or searching behavior, the are haunted by some sin or crime, and they appeal to society by standing apart from society. Some of the qualities are more fufilled by the monster and others are more fulfilled by Voctor. Obviously with a tie to Grendel, we see that instead of Beowulf Grendel is the Byronic hero but Victor is more tightly connected to a monster than Beowulf ever was so it is a mystery! I am hoping that over time it will become more clear to me but this is AP literature so I doubt I will ever get a clear answer :p I am thinking they are BOTH byronic heroes... But anyway, I love this whole byronic hero stuff. It's fascinating. I decided to think about some of my friends and figure out which ones were Byronic heroes and it was kind of funny because I actually did find some that fit the card. The other funny thing that I discovered is that I listen to a lot of music that is related to Byronic heroes such as the Doors, Nirvana, Alice in Chains, and the Cure. I never knew so many people and characters that surround my life were related to this. I kind of want to be a Byronic hero. Doesn't everyone? to be the cool, sexy, cynical one that no one can figure out? I think it might be tougher than I'm expecting... Another thing that I have noticed is that the Romantic era has never ended. The interest in Romantic "poetry" is a continuing motif in popular culture. Romanticism values imagination and emotion over rationality. And is that not what love really is? All of these Byronic heroes who write music write music that echoes Romantic themes and seem to be reincarnations of Romantic poets. Their music discusses the forever broken heartedness that consumes them but they will never be rational and just quit. *Sigh* I want my own Kurt Cobain.. okay maybe not.. but still the same general idea :)

Grendel is not satan... He is a satanic priest!

So, I have been analyzing Grendel these past 100 pages because the content is getting a little "what in the world are you talking about John Gardner?" BUT, I have come to a conclusion, Grendel is portrayed as a Devil creature, and Satan in Beowulf but is not described that way in the story of Grendel, I believe he is what I would like to call a "Satanic Priest." He preaches of things related to evil thoughts. If the Devil had someone who was the perfect "spreader of his religion" I believe it would be Grendel. Grendel is very smart. Sometimes a little too smart but at the same time he is a tiny bit ignorant. We could say he knows about 90% of what he is talking about, much like Christian priests. You could say that Christian priests only REALLY know about 90% of what their talking about and the other 10% is very much a guessing game. I have an Uncle who is a primitive baptist preacher so I feel like I know a pretty good amount about the life and times of a preacher/priest. My uncle is not the most "holy" man ever. He has a wife, he makes jokes and he is insanely fun to be around, probably one of the funniest people I know. This is important with his job; to be a preacher you really have to be able to tell a story, and tell it well. This relates to Grendel because no, Grendel is not the most evil thing in the entire universe. Grendel actually does have some redeeming qualities (for a Devilish monster), for instance, he does not kill deer, he "takes mercy" on Wealtheow, you could say he has the ability to love. Just like priests have the ability to sin just like other people. Tying this back to the meaning in the novel, their is a large section about Grendel's interactions and feelings about priests. He tries to act like he is so much better than them when actually he is the same, just acting on a different cause. I would also like to tie this into Gardner's exestentialist beliefs.He wants someone to act on the other side. Everyone is always being pulled in the direction of God and "goodness" and I believe that frustrates Gardner. I don't think he actually wants people to support evil, but I do think he wishes that people questioned it. What is the real difference in supporting God and supporting Satan? If you give your time to God, he will bless me. If I gave my time to Satan, would Satan bless me? Did Gardner give Grendel animal and human qualities to push him in the direction of satan? More animalistic than humans, but definetely still intelligent? Either way, Grendel is turning into his own personal form of the Shaper. He is shaping people to be afraid, and to question everything they know, and he does it like an art form. He does not just slaughter people, there is thought, there is study. Grendel is more than just a monster, he is a satan helping, priest, who is furry, and kind of hilarious. Gotta love it?

Grendel. That's all I have to say.

Grendel is a timeless character. Grendel is a Willie Stark and a Jack Burden, he is a Harry Potter and a Voldemort, he is an Odysseus and a Cyclops. But what does that mean? I think it means we need to step back and find the real evil in our society. When I think of evil, I think of people who do things that are morally wrong, such as killing, molesting and emotionally disabling people. PEOPLE specifically. I do not think of monsters because monsters are not real. They just simply do not come to mind. People say that what makes a scary movie truly scary is if the situation could actually become a reality. So, monster movies are not what scare us most. So, why in the book, Beowulf, is a monster the most frightening thing they could think of? I know earlier I discussed how I loved those Anglo-saxons but now I am starting to think that they were quite ignorant. I do not think they were intelligent enough to grasp that the real horrors of our race have to do with our interactions with eachother. And that is what Grendel's story is all about. For about a week I loved Hrothgar and Beowulf but now I find them immature and power hungry. The funny thing is, Grendel is just like us. We kill innocent things everyday for the purpose of nutrition. There is no difference between us going out and buying a steak and him chomping down on some good Anglo-saxon flesh! But we like to make it all out like he's some big bad horrible guy, when actually he's just lonely and has a bit of an eating disorder. Going along with a theme of human ignorance, we are too close-minded to accept things that are different from ourselves. Even in our own race. As a kid I was picked on a lot for being really small. It has affected my entire life. I am not as confident as I could be but I have picked up a very valuable trait from it: I accept everyone. I have never said something negative about someones physical features in my whole life. I know what hurts the most, the things you cannot change. Grendel cannot change the way he looks, or his short comings as a monster. Because we are such an ignorant species we shut out things that do not always look or act like we do. EXAMPLE: aliens. There is a enormous amount of movies based on aliens coming to earth and killing us. Now I'm pretty sure if something green with a large head came striding up to me, I'd punch it and run away. Is that a correct response? NO! You have no idea if that alien is bad at all. Overall, I do not think Grendel is a book for the shallow minded, it is definetely one for the deep thinkers. Ones who questions their own feelings, actions and beliefs. If you are not thinking of these things when you read it, it could be totally worthless for you. I story about how a funny monster lost his life while doing the best he could. I see myself in Grendel. A little lost, but trying to figure it all out. I hope no one slays me :)

Anglo-saxon... LOVE IT.

So I have decided that Anglo-saxon literature is the perfect literature for me :) I really love Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings and Star Wars so this genre of literature was quite approriate for me. So far all I have read is Beowulf but I am definetely going to investigate to find some more anglo-saxon literature to enjoy. I am a woman who enjoys larger than life male protagonists. Frodo Baggins, Harry Potter, Luke Skywalker and now, Beowulf. Anglo-saxon literature also has that mobster feel. The scary monsters are not the only things you have to worry about in the novel; you also have to worry about somebodies sibling coming back to kill you if you accidently dropped an axe on their head. A lot of times literature does not have that bonded feeling. In the Anglo-saxon culture, you will fight til the death to avenge a family member which brings about an idea in literature that you cannot always experience any where else. I also liked the idea that an average joe of sorts could defeat the most deadly creature ever discovered. It reminds me SO MUCH of Harry Potter. A young man defeats the most feared wizard of all time, Voldemort. And also, LOTR. Frodo Baggins, a hobbit, takes the ring of power through Mordor to Mount Doom and destroys it for the good of Middle Earth. Literature blooms out of other literature and I think a lot of the most memorable novels of our time come directly from the ideas of the Anglo-saxons. The only difference between the Anglo-saxon novels and the more modern novels is that in modern novels, the main character always has "help." Harry has Ron and Hermione. Ron is the character with abilities that are not always obvious, but in the end can be very helpful and Hermione is the brains of the operation while Harry is the brawn. In Beowulf, he is all of those things in one person. He is extremely smart, extremely strong and very brave. You could say that modern literature, although still very fictional, is a tiny bit more realistic (but not much). I would also like to look into the fact that there was no love in Beowulf (or in the parts we read). I think that is something that definetely contrasts to modernistic literature. I would say that romance in novels or stories was innapropriate during the 10th century and therefore was not mentioned in novelistic ideas or in poems. Or maybe they were trying to give Beowulf a godlike image? During the whole novel I was think about how he reminded me of Hercules who actually does become a God. But in Beowulf he is still mortal. But his larger than life persona takes him out of the realms of love for me. Either way this is a great novel because it incorporates everything that makes literature great. A hero and a villain.

Gender Roles... Can't live with em' can't live without em'.

Their are a lot of people who are very disturbed about our societys role on what we do with our lives based on our gender. I definetely would not say my family is old fashioned. In fact, my mother "wears the pants" in our family. She is a very successful businesswoman and she works very hard at her job, making more money and having a higher position, than most of the men that she works with. My father on the other hand does not have a job. He stays at home and does laundry, gets the cars washed, pays the bills and other details that just need to get done. My dad is actually a really slendid baker. He made a Boston creme pie the other night... BUT ANYWAY. My family is in no way, shape or form tied down by societies expectations. My mother grew up in rural Pembroke, Georgia. She went to Georgia Southern college because that was the only place she knew to go to and that is what her family could afford. She worked her way through college and had the chance to do research at Emory Hospital and is a very important employee at Merck. My mother has never in her life complained about being discriminated against or held down because of her gender. I believe that if more people just put their heads down and worked, this would not be a problem in our society. I also believe that if you have 5 children, you probably do need to stay home. I believe that what happens in our society all depends on the people. If you are a lazy woman, than yes, you're going to fail and that could be failure at being a mother or failure at being a good employee. In America I believe you can do anything you want to do. Women play football. Men are ballerinas. In America we believe that if your the best, YOUR THE BEST. Basketball teams are owned primarily by white people, but the teams are almost always dominated by African Americans. THIS PROVES IT. IF YOU ARE GOOD AT WHAT YOU DO, YOU WILL NOT BE DSICRIMINATED AGAINST. As women, we have to prove ourselves. No one will respect you until you show reasons to be respected. I also believe that women are more affected by the choices of their own mothers. My mother has a good job, and throughout my life I have always been motivated and known that I would work hard and being a working woman as well. I have a friend whose mother is a stay at home mom and surprise, surprise, that is what she wants to be as well. It is not a mystery here people! Be who you want to be and you will be accepted (eventually). I once had a dream of being a Formula 1 race car driver. Do you think my gender ever deffered me? Of course not. Being scared deferred me! I was brought up in a genderless home. My house is a tranny. If you want the roles of gender to stop dictating your life, start in your own home.

I feel sorry for the men...

To all the guys that picked The Red Tent as their novel... I feel for you. As a woman, from time to time this novel makes me want to gag. The imagery, the explanations and the choices of wording make me want to barf. I wouldn't just say this novel is explicit, I would say it is A. graphic and B. you need a strong stomach to enjoy it. As a read I was excited for the more "interesting" parts of the novel but the longer I read it the more I just kind of felt sick and tired of hearing about all the absolutely SICK stuff that happens concerning birth and "other stuff." I do not even want to begin on the "OTHER" stuff. Lets just have a little chat about birth. Thanks to this novel I no longer want to have children. I am going to start having reoccuring dreams about being Bilhah, Leah, Rachel or Zilpah and having to pass some HUGE baby with no drugs on a pile of hay (Yes, that is now the image when I think of birth). I am trying to sort out the meaning of all this nasty talk. The main conclusion I have come to is that the author is trying to say that back then, all that people ever cared about was getting pregnant and making sure to keep the world good and inhabited. I am HOPING that the author is trying to make a little joke about how life all changed with the El came into play. When everyone was polytheistic they only had ONE thing on their mind and it was not anything I would enjoy discussing in a blog that my teacher reads :) This is either the case or Anita Diament is a total freak and I really hope this is her last novel. The GREAT part abou this novel is in essense, it is a total copy of a Bible story BUT it is also very original because of that fact. You cannot read this novel and be trying to pull out Biblical allusions because the entire novel is a Biblical allusion. This makes you have to use even more of your brain to analyze the piece of literature. More than the Bible, more than a Fairy Tale, it makes you have to analyze humans as a whole. The beginning of humans is presented (polytheistic) along with where humans are going (monotheistic). I think this would be the perfect novel to read through a psychological lense. Psychoanalyzing this novel would be incredibly intense as well as analyzation through symbolic archytypes, especially physical ones; Diament gives all the characters their own little special "traits" that definetely hold a lot of weight in their personality and the novel as a whole. I also think that the fact that the beginning of the novel is the most grotesque because it is discussing the lives of the women before Dinah and when Dinah comes along there is more "forward" thinking and everything is not centered around "the" thing :) THANK GOD FOR DINAH.

Chaucer is an absolute gas!

I'll tell you something I enjoy: CHAUCER. After reading one story (Wife of Bath) I've decided it is kind of like Greek myth or the Bible (just not as overall intense). I read the Wife of Bath story and as I read it about a thousand Kiddie tales came popping into my head. For instance, the princess and frog. But kind of in reverse. And also not a frog. BUT THE SAME GENERAL IDEA. You have this dude, the knight. He goes out to find the truth. He comes back and he has to marry this nasty old lady who I found to be pretty darn creepy. But then she lays down the law and that whole reverse psychology thing comes in and she becomes a beautiful young girl (No witch involved). SO FREAKING princess and the frog. Did a little research and Chaucer definetely thought this up first. WAY TO GO. And I pretty much have decided he is the Jesus of Kiddie Lit. You read his little stories although they are sometimes a bit explicit and, you get that wholesome moral in the end. Que brillante! At the same time I found it a bit boring and confusing but the facts are still there. I also have an idea of why the Wife of Bath was telling the story. And isn't it ironic that she is called the "wife of Bath" when A. She's a dirty girl and B. She's not married. FUNNY KID THAT CHAUCER. So anyway, I believe she was telling the story because she is an independent woman but the wrong kind. You have women that have full time jobs and kids, and then you have women that cheat on their husbands and spend too much money. Both independent. One socially acceptable. But how acceptable? How sad is it that in Chaucer's time we still wanted the same things we yearn for now :(. It still is not socially acceptable to have a woman money maker and a stay at home dad. To me it seems rational because that is what my family has. But still society makes me think it's not right. It's all very odd how society controls us. At least we have chaucer to bring it out into the open. I think chaucer loves women. And when I say women, I mean REAL women. Women that are virtuous, loyal, and caring. So he loves the Queen and hates the Wife of Bath. The queen becomes young and beautiful, and Wife of Bath is a chatterbox. Characterization at its finest. These things do not just happen! Talking gender roles, Chaucer hits the nail on the head for sure.He gives everybody what they do and do not deserve. His novel displays gender roles for what they are: depends on the person or persons involved. Chaucer's stories are a cornacopia of moral stories with a little satire, explicit material, and saucy characterization. Like the Bible, but not. That is why Chaucer will always be remembered.

She gets the guy, she gets her dream, where's the depth?

In my blog for this week I decided to compare and contrast the novels we read for a literature class and the novels that we simply do not. A lot of kids (if they had the chance) would probably whine and complain about the horribly depressing books that we have to read in literature class. Books with violence, inbreeding, death, corruption and everything else those sicko writers could fit into a single novel. Outside of school we read much different things. Lets just name the two favorites: Twilight and Harry Potter. So I sit at home and read the Twilight series because I simply cannot put them down. They are enticing, interesting, and romantic. When I read Tess of the d'Urbervilles I had to read in ten page periods because I literally could not get through any more than that without falling asleep or crying because of frustration. When I finish a book like Tess it lingers with me. Small things remind me of the novel as I live my life and it never really leaves you. Twilight is definetely not a novel with a theme and ideas that are popping out of every situation in my life. Twilight will not be a novel that people will read in a hundred years because vampires are not real and neither is love. A beautiful, 100 year old, wise, intelligent blood-sucking creature just simply would never exist and would certainly never love such an annoying little girl as Bella Swan. If a REAL writer was writing this story it would have been one book and would have ended tragically. In a fury of heat and passion Edward would have sucked her blood, a vampire hunt would have ensued and both of them would have died out of passion. Now THAT would stick with you. On the other hand, I believe Harry Potter is an idea that will last for generations. It is the never ending battle between good and evil. It is a small, witch version of the bible. Every chapter, every story, every character telling you what makes life great and what breaks life down. Harry Potter has that scar on his head for a reason because he is a Christ figure andd he is proud of it! Harry doesn't go through life without loss. He loses his family, he loses a multitude of friends, and at times he loses himself. In such great novels as The Great Gatsby the same loss and intense personal strife occurs. Harry Potter is book that effects my life everyday. Not just that everytime I turn on a light I quietly say "lumos" but that when stuff is looking down for me Harry Potter can be an inspiration. He had no parents, he was fighting the baddest wizard of all time, people were always screwing around with him, and of course he puts a smile on and is unusually kind. So yes I am reading New Moon right now to get ready for the movie but its not personally sticking with me like true, real literature. So thank you literature class, you are the one that really affects my life!

I really hope Jennifer isn't in my room...

My compare and contrast paper deals with the use of violence in both Candide and All the King's Men. In all reality, I am quite sure I have never read novel's that were more ingeniously violent than these two novels. You could say I am a bit of a chicken when it comes to all things scary. I prefer to read things that bring me up and not novels that bring me down. I feel the same way about movies except for the fact that a lot of the time I am forced to go see scary movies with my hardcore, want to be frightened, want to feel like their going to pee their pants, friends of mine. So I was forced to see Jennifer's Body this weekend. Surprisingly it was not the bloody mess of bodies I had to sit through that bothered me but the fact that Jennifer was straight up creepy with her fangs and spooky smiles. It's like blood is not even an issue any more. Even Jennifer felt that way. Whenever they would take about people who had died in the book (most of them courtesy of Jennifer the demon freak) she kind of denied anyone who wanted to feel sad or talk about it. I feel like Jennifer defines our society these days. When you read of the violence in Voltaire and Warren all of the characters are so deeply affected and the violence is clean and dare I say it, normal. In this day and time we are driven to be numb. I used to be scared of my pillow but I sat through that movie last night without a single problem. I almost dared to think it was a little lame and not really rated R material in scariness. Sad isn't it? When I thought about how it didn't really affect me I was almost ashamed of myself. What is this world coming to? That I am scared of. We thirst as americans to see each other in the dirt, being eaten, sprouting wings, and why? Is it people trying to save us from ourselves or is it some sick mentality we have grown in to? I am really not sure but I'd like to go back to the times when a hanging hurt and a gun shot was deadly. And at the same time I wonder, is our literary curriculum trying to do the same thing? We read things that make us feel uncomfortable because it is supposed to make us better students, better readers. But what if it is making us bad people? What if it is making our own thoughts into dark ones? Teenagers in this day and age are looking for a high in any way. Are we being brought down by our society? We live in a world where tv, movies, news, school is controlled by darkness. We do not have to be pulled down but we inevitably are. I want to stand up against this. I want to be in the light. Perhaps if everyone tried to step out into the light we would all be happier. Lets leave Jennifer's Body behind and watch some Mickey Mouse.

Sherwood Anderson... Voltaire?

After reading Sherwood Anderson's, Winesburg, Ohio I have decided that perhaps, Voltaire and Anderson share some qualities in their writing. Let's talk God in Winesburg, Ohio: the lovely, Jesse Bentley is a prime example. Jesse Bentley gets "denied" by God quite a few times in the novel. A. He prays for a son to name David who will take over his farm and do things he could have never imagined and has a daughter, Louise who is crazy and tries to kill her husband. B. When his daughter has a son, his name is David (we feel like things are coming back around) and just when Jesse Bentley feels like he's going to get what he wants he takes young David out to sacrafice a lamb. This freaks young David out to the point where he almost kills Grandpa Jesse and the relationship between them is really never the same. I believe in this example Sherwood Anderson is basically making fun of a deep believer in the Christian way. He shows prime examples where Jesse is trying to give his all to Christ and the Lord and the Lord denies him multiple times. Another example of God in Winesburg, Ohio: Reverend Curtis. So we have meek and mild little Reverend Curtis and then he sees the sultry Kate Swift. He sees her smoking in bed and he sees her "bare shoulders" and this drives him wild. He can't think straight when he tells his sermons in church and eventually he decides he's just going to look and enjoy and think what he "wants to think" and when he does this he has a revelation about his relationship with God. It's ironic. Again I feel that Anderson is making fun of this Christian figure-head by making him find God through a totally sinful woman. Kate Swift is unmarried, unchristian, she tries to have an affair with an ex-student, and yet, she inspires a minister. Anderson is trying to say: Nobody is really good. I believe he is making jokes about organized religion. Anderson feels that everyone takes the fall and nobody is really good, and trying to fake your way through Christianity and real belief just is not going to cut it. I think it is a moderaly Voltaire train of thinking. I also think it makes sense because he writes in expressionism which illustrates the meaning of being alive and the emotional experience, distorting reality for emotional effect. The emotional effect is wow being a crazy devout Christian is kind of ridiculous. Killing an innocent lamb, faking your way through ministry when you are severely tempted by your sultry neighbor. So maybe this is distortion but he is definetely getting his point across. Voltaire used a sort of distortion to get his point across as well. Candide goes through ridiculous woes and his friends never seem to actually die. This seems to be a sort of early expressionism. He uses the distortion to illustrate the severe idiocracy of philosophy and to take on a more realistic view on life. On the other hand I do not think Anderson's novel is solely based on these ideas but I think it is definetely something to be considered.

Philosophy is FUN!

I just started doing all this research on philosophical ideas and WOWZA are there a lot of them. All of the ideas that are syndicated from Candide are all very christianity based, which I find quite interesting. I always thought of Voltaire as a cynical, atheist which is obviously untrue because the people of that time were almost all believers. The ideas of the manichees were especially interesting: both good and evil have always existed in the universe and goodness doesn't come from evil and evil doesn't come from goodness, its just there. I believe that is true. There are people that seem almost purely good and people that seem almost purely good and then there's a lot of people who are all mixed up in evil and good. So its hard to put it all together. Let's talk a little Saint Augustine, imitate the good, bear the evil, love all. I like it! It is a bit hippie, a bit Bob Marley. Funny how someone who seems so against the grain of things (Bob Marley) is right a long with Saint Augustine. (That rhymed FYI). I'd like to think that I could try to love all but it's just plain tough. Maybe that's what philosophy is. Some crazy ideas to be good people. How about this one, courtesy of Blaise Pascal: God can bring forth good out of evil and we bring forth evil out of good. What does that mean? We all suck? I suppose that's a very cynical philosophy but also a good idea to get people to do what you want. If I had a philosophy I would do along with Earl of Shaftesbury: There are evil tendencies in the popular presentation of Christianity. I would like to think we have evil "tendencies." It kind of softens the blow, eh? I mean I do not mean to be a terrible person, but hey, stuff happens. Pretty much overall, philosophy is kind of goofy. I suppose if I was going to make my own philosophy on life it would go like this: If you have done everything you can do, you can sleep at night. Simple, concise, fantastic. I SHOULD BE A PHILOSOPHER! Basically when I have a huge test and I know it's going to hurt my pride, I say those words in my head because without thinking like that, you'll kill yourself with over work and under pay. If my philosophy was a band it would be 311. Chill, easy-going, you can jam to it anytime, who can't appreciate it? If my philosophy was a food it would be sushi. Not everybody can live by it, but if you can, it makes you very happy :) Basically philosphy is fun to make fun of but I'm not sure if it is even real. It's like a really short version of the Bible or a very concise religion. Can you even do that? Apparently you can. I'm not 100% sure if you can follow anybody else's without modifying it in your own head to make it fit your own life. ANYWAY, philosophy seems kind of ridiculous but maybe I'm too immature to understand it. Maybe no one understands it because their not supposed to. Maybe that's the point.

What's up my good friend the blog

This week was tough to decide on a blog topic. To be very honest I am not nearly far enough in Winesburg, Ohio to really be able to discuss it. That's next weeks blog for sure! So I am back on All the King's Men. Sorry if it's a disappointment. In class we did a project that mostly had to do with a sexual coming of age, and the relationship between Anne and Jack. I like to talk about their relationship because I am a seventeen year old girl and love is just plain interesting! So we have this darkly humorous cynical guy: Jack. And this young, frivolous and a tiny bit promiscuous girl: Anne. How do these two go together? I'm starting to think that this book has absolutely nothing to do with politics. It is just a very complicated love story. Or is that every novel? All this stuff makes my head hurt. BUT, lets continue on. Water and love. Water: wet, cold, hard, soft, death, life. Love: heat, pain, passion, emptyness, beginnings, endings. I've noticed that the love between Anne and Jack is centered around water most of the time. Water brings them together and breaks them apart. But, in the end is everything washed away and the truth is exposed? The truth that they are "meant" to be together. It sounds SO cheesy, but when you read the novel that is exactly how it sounds. They meet as children, they fall in and out of love, and finally, after a lot of turmoil, they are together. So warren... is a romantic? Maybe I'm totally on the wrong track, but it's my track, so it's right for me. Let's talk a little MJ (Michael Jackson). The titles of his songs, to be exact. The way you make me feel, rock with you, don't stop til' you get enough= LOVE. Jack's story could be an MJ album. Just saying. I'm listening to Michael Jackson right now. So Jack watches Anne come out of the water and he's thinking "woah" so he's thinking you knock me off my feet, my lonely days are gone. Then he becomes a little older and he's thinking I want to rock with you, all night, we're gonna party til' the sunlight. Next thing you know, he's hit by a smooth criminal, Willie Stark. So Jack's thinking Annie are you okay? Are you okay Annie? You've been hit by, you've been struck by, a smooth criminal. And finally, at long last, Don't Stop Til' You Get Enough! They are together and all Jack can think is, keep on with the force don't stop, don't stop til' you get enough! Yes, I just summarized a love life using michael jackson lyrics. Perhaps thats why Warren just added that little gem of a love story in the novel, because it's easy. It's a sure fire win, if you are half descent with the idea of love. Channel MJ, you'll get it.

Why read to write?

These days I feel like I have been writing my own stories. If you read the margins of my books you will find a whole other book. I call it "Alaina's View." I have to take every bit of barely symbolic language and make it into some fantastic, insightful literary masterpiece of thought process. When I read novels on my own, I never write in them. I find it oddly insulting to the writer. I feel like I scar the pages with my own personal views of an authors ideas. We take every book and massacre it. I remember nearly every section and with all my markings, I can find whatever part I want in a novel in warp speed. There is no sacredness in this type of reading and writing. When I read Harry Potter, I find something new and interesting every time I read through the novels. Do you want to know why? because just reading and letting it flow through your mind like an assembly line of thought makes for a more interesting experience that you can do over and over again. If I take every paragraph and ravish it with my ideas and opinions, why ever read it again? You create so much of an idea for the novel that you miss the novel completely. Reading has been made into a personal thing. If you read like we read, we all have the same opinion. there are rules you've given us for reading and now we all read the same way. We have to linger on every passage, not just the ones we enjoy. We know what is going to happen before it does. Why would you enjoy living life if you already knew what was going to happen? We cannot appreciate it as a whole because we read every paragraph individually, the endless search for "meaning." Everybody likes to tell a good story. And everybody likes to hear a good one. You don't see me over here putting hidden crap in my stories because it will "make them better." Because it doesn't, and I don't think authors actually do it on purpose unless they seriously have no lives. And I am so tired of reading depressing stories. I live in a world where people die every day. We all sin everyday. We all feel the weight of the world on our shoulders. No wonder kids are so messed up, all we ever do is read depressing stories and predict the depressing stuff that is going to happen and then OVER ANALYZE the depressing stuff we find. The feeling we get from books, the bond, the enjoyment: slaughtered. And what for? I certainly do not know. A world has been created where we will never really understand the literature we are made to read. Only the weird stuff we find in it. I am not an author, and I'm tired of being made into one. I had a bad weekend, so I made an angry blog. Maybe next week I'll praise annotations :)

Candide: Did the coen brothers write this?

Candide is a novel for people with attention deficit disorder. If you cannot pay attention when reading Candide, I don't know how you read novels at all. The incredibly linear style creates short stories into a novel by putting them together extremely quickly. Years pass by in just a few chapters. But don't forget about the never ending dark humor! Another aspect of this novels attention-getting talents. Voltaire shows us death, canabalism, and rape like pulling adorable, white bunnies out of a hat and then putting them directly back into the hat. He doesn't linger on the dark ideas but he certainly doesn't pass them up either. I found myself laughing at hanging, beating, stabbing, and ravishing with a feeling of total disgust afterward. There is one thing about Candide that is undeniable: talk about historical references. GOOD LORD. "everything is best," with this, Voltaire ridicules Leibniz's philosophy by oversimplifying his optimism and terminology and presenting funny examples. I wonder if he wrote the entire novel just for this purpose. I mean its short, it has a common theme, maybe we over analyze his intentions for the novel. Voltaire was obviously an incredibly talented writer and could hide his deep criticism through what seems to be an innovative, comical, interesting novel. I like this idea. I like to think that authors us books for more than creating a timeless story, but a timeless story with a present use for his time. Out of all of the summer reading, this one was not a bore. Its possibly the most genuinely interesting book other than Harry Potter (the best novelistic act of all time :D)

all the kings men... rocks!

All the King's Men is one of my favorite books ever. The themes are timeless and can accomodate any thought process. It has the timeless love story between Anne and Jack, politics with Willie, murder, death, secret fathers, sex, crazy children, divorce, marriage, and everything else. When I heard it was a political novel I was dreading it but turns out, I enjoy them! I like to read about people trying to change and shape American government. It also created the idea of following your dreams and breaking out of social rights and wrongs. Willie is the person we all want to be, a smooth talker who seems to control everything around him with perfect precision. It also discusses how sometimes being on top, or "the boss" can lead to your demise. The dialogue was also a great part of the novel. I felt like I knew all the characters and talked to them all of the time because of the constant dialogue between the characters and the narrator to the reader. I also am just in love with the Anne Stanton and Jack Burden love story. I'm a real sucker for long-term love that takes time to truly establish itself. It reminds of the Pearl Jam song "Black". It talks about how "he" can't live his life the same because she "tattooed all I am, all I ever was, black..." I feel like Jack's entire life is not only effected by Willie but also by Anne Stanton. She plays a HUGE part. She is part of the intertwining of Willie and Jack's life! She loved both of them and they both loved her. Poor Jack can't catch a break and Willie doesn't help a home boy out! I hope my life is far less complicated than Jack Burden's. He truly carried a "burden" all his life.